Evolution of what?

[Eli G]

If I made my family tree, there would be no points of convergence without personal names.

Evolutionists want us to believe that they know how animals changed from species to species... and they change the tree every time they find a new problem... apart from leaving the points of convergence between species unnamed; as I say "the aunts and uncles" that never existed, but that we have to assume as true, because they say so.

PS: I marvel at the way evolutionists waste time answering meaningless things to the questions others propose, and the number of cheerleaders they have every time they do it.

 

[Pogo]

Is it not clear this question?

Evolutionist say that archaeopteryx is a "transitional species" between dinosaurs and birds.

Which species was transitional between some complete dinosaur and Archeopteryx, and which was transitional between Archeopteryx and a complete bird?

Archaeopteryx and modern complete birds are complete dinosaurs, this is another ignorant PRATT that there is a half and half incomplete stage, all animals are complete.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I made my family tree, there would be no points of convergence without personal names.

Evolutionists want us to believe that they know how animals changed from species to species... and they change the tree every time they find a new problem... apart from leaving the points of convergence between species unnamed; as I say "the aunts and uncles" that never existed, but that we have to assume as true, because they say so.

PS: I marvel at the way evolutionists waste time answering meaningless things to the questions others propose, and the number of cheerleaders they have every time they do it.

That is only because you know them. A family tree is only an analogy, it is not the same as a cladogram. It is a poor example to keep bringing up.

Now if you like I could link a video whose goal is to educated that goes into much more detail of what is known when it comes to bird evolution. Or you could look at this cladogram:

But for your question the video would be the better answer since it goes into much more detail, you can start this video at 2:40 and watch from there. He lists at least four species between archaeopteryx and modern birds:

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An analytical Biblical Chronology shows Adam was created 4025/6 B.C.

Yes, that is how young earth creationists dated the world - biblical genealogies. Science dates the earth and the cosmos using empirical evidence coming from radioactive decays and redshift and standard candle data.

Isn't evolutionary doctrine all about a chain composed of supposed new species originating from different previous species?

Yes. That's what's meant by a universal common ancestor and descent with modification.

If the amount of lines counts, there are a lot more than just "five independent lines of evidence" that support the existence of the Creator.

I'd like to see some of those lines. Do you claim to have evidence that the world was intelligently designed? Do you claim to have further evidence that that designer is the one you believe in? I'm pretty sure that whatever you have to offer would not change the mind of an atheistic critical thinker and empiricist.

You think that if you draw a direct line between the first living organism and the human being, placing between them the entire supposed chain of species or "uncles and aunts of the intermediate species" (that have never been discovered), and divide the total number of years that It is assumed from when this process supposedly began until modern man, you will have a number of years that can be considered reasonable for one species to become another for all of the steps?

I'd say that that method would suffice to tell how long that transformation took. We would need more than just the dates of the advent of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) to determine how long the individual transformations took, such as the first eukaryotes, the first multicellular creatures, the first conscious creatures, the first vertebrates, the first terrestrial vertebrates, the first mammals, etc.

Evolutionists want us to believe that they know how animals changed from species to species

They don't know, don't need to know, and may never know the precise paths that evolution took from LUCA to the existing tree of life today. What they know is the mechanism and have a tentative and approximate timeline.

Which species was transitional between some complete dinosaur and Archeopteryx, and which was transitional between Archeopteryx and a complete bird? Some are satisfied with so little!!!

It makes no difference to the theory of evolution what we call these transitional forms or whether we find them.

 

[Eli G]

I guess some people need an update on that doctrine ... It is funny how they look for anything online to try and support what they say.

Certain paleontologist says:

“We used to think Archaeopteryx was so different from other dinosaurs that it was ancestral to birds, but recent discoveries show that this is no longer the case,” says Xu. “Our main conclusion is that Archaeopteryx is no longer a bird.” mg21128234-400-archaeopteryx-knocked-off-its-perch-as-first-bird

How sustainable is really the evolutionary doctrine?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess some people need an update on that doctrine ... It is funny how they look for anything online to try and support what they say.

Certain paleontologist says:

“We used to think Archaeopteryx was so different from other dinosaurs that it was ancestral to birds, but recent discoveries show that this is no longer the case,” says Xu. “Our main conclusion is that Archaeopteryx is no longer a bird.” mg21128234-400-archaeopteryx-knocked-off-its-perch-as-first-bird

How sustainable is really the evolutionary doctrine?

There is no "doctrine". And your use of a popular science source does not really prove anything. In fact it sounds as if it was written by someone that does not even understand evolution. There was no "first bird". There almost never is a "first". Becoming a bird is an emergent process which means that there will be always arguments at the boundary of things. What that author is claiming is that though archaeopteryx has feathers and various other traits is that it did not have enough "bird" traits to claim that it is a bird yet. He is still putting it in the dinosaur area. Guess what? He did not say that it was not a transitional form since it clearly is.

How does it hurt evolution at all if it is classified as "still a dinosaur"? In fact now you have a clear dinosaur that has almost all of the traits of modern bird. I can tell you what it does not have. It does not have a beak. It has mouth without a beak, Its mouth is filled with teeth. It does not have the tail of a modern bird. That is about it. That does not affect bird evolution one iota. It is only about where to draw the line.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Evolutionist say that archaeopteryx is a "transitional species" between dinosaurs and birds.

Which species was transitional between some complete dinosaur and Archeopteryx, and which was transitional between Archeopteryx and a complete bird?

Some are satisfied with so little!!!

Mirror talking again?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If the amount of lines counts, there are a lot more than just "five independent lines of evidence" that support the existence of the Creator.

Weird how you haven't provided any at all then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If someone dedicated themselves to deleting the posts that say nothing about the reasoning presented, such as those that only contain fallacies, disqualifications and other weeds, how little would be left alive here!

Many of your, and other creationist, posts would certainly disappear from the forum.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Isn't it true that the age of the entire universe would not be enough for a supposed chain evolution from a single-celled organism to a human?

No, that's not true.

Let someone make the chain, and count the necessary years. A useful exercise for those who have nothing of value to say or do.

I'll file this in the category of "not even wrong", along with most of your posts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Although evolutionists and other scientists realize the genetic similarity of so many species that are evidently different from each other, they still do not realize how impressive is this fact.

Ow, they do. More specifically, the pattern these similarities ("matches", actually) are distributed in among the different species.
They form a nested hierarchy. A tree. A family tree. Yes, scientists are very aware of the significance of that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If the amount of lines counts, there are a lot more than just "five independent lines of evidence" that support the existence of the Creator.

Actually, you have just the one line in your religious scriptures. And that's not really a line of evidence as much as it is a line of mere claims.
And the evidence of reality contradicts that line of claims.

So yeah.....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionist say that archaeopteryx is a "transitional species" between dinosaurs and birds.

Which species was transitional between some complete dinosaur and Archeopteryx, and which was transitional between Archeopteryx and a complete bird?

Some are satisfied with so little!!!

The use of the word "complete" here, exposes your ignorance once again.
The use of the word "complete" implies that there are other instances where words like "half" or "quarter" would apply.
Sounds like you are talking about crockoducks....


Here's something for you to chew on:
- birds = "complete" dinosaurs

Just like:
- humans = "complete" mammals; "complete" primates; "complete" vertebrates; "complete" eukaryotes.

Or like:
- housecats and lions = "complete" felines
- chiwawa and labrador = "complete" canines

- felines and canines = "complete" mammals.


In biology, there is no such thing as "half" a species or "half" a trait.

Is the wing of a pinguin "half a wing" because it can't fly?

 

[Pogo]

The use of the word "complete" here, exposes your ignorance once again.
The use of the word "complete" implies that there are other instances where words like "half" or "quarter" would apply.
Sounds like you are talking about crockoducks....


Here's something for you to chew on:
- birds = "complete" dinosaurs

Just like:
- humans = "complete" mammals; "complete" primates; "complete" vertebrates; "complete" eukaryotes.

Or like:
- housecats and lions = "complete" felines
- chiwawa and labrador = "complete" canines

- felines and canines = "complete" mammals.


In biology, there is no such thing as "half" a species or "half" a trait.

As you send me off course again

Is the wing of a pinguin "half a wing" because it can't fly?

B. pinguin

By SergioTorresC - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, File:Piñuela1.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

 

[Eli G]

Evolutionists, for some reason, try to avoid the relationship between the supposed physical changes of apes and their intellectual development. Which of them occurred before and which after? For example: did apes lose their body hair when they were already humans who felt "moral" shame and began to weave clothes?

The Bible gives details about the intellectual development of humanity, from the first newly created human couple (with an innocent mentality like children) onwards. There is no "mental" backwardness in human beings from their creation to the present; Although human knowledge has increased since the creation of our first parents, the Bible shows that their intellectual capacity has remained stable to this day.

On the other hand, the Bible predicted that human moral capacities would deteriorate over time, and current human conditions show that this has been the type of human transformation that has actually occurred, and not an advancement.

2 Tim. 3:1 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.

 

[shunyadragon]

If I made my family tree, there would be no points of convergence without personal names.

Evolutionists want us to believe that they know how animals changed from species to species... and they change the tree every time they find a new problem... apart from leaving the points of convergence between species unnamed; as I say "the aunts and uncles" that never existed, but that we have to assume as true, because they say so.

PS: I marvel at the way evolutionists waste time answering meaningless things to the questions others propose, and the number of cheerleaders they have every time they do it.

A very confusing dishonest self imposed ignorance of science in a post to justify a religious agenda without science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I guess some people need an update on that doctrine ... It is funny how they look for anything online to try and support what they say.

Certain paleontologist says:

“We used to think Archaeopteryx was so different from other dinosaurs that it was ancestral to birds, but recent discoveries show that this is no longer the case,” says Xu. “Our main conclusion is that Archaeopteryx is no longer a bird.” mg21128234-400-archaeopteryx-knocked-off-its-perch-as-first-bird

How sustainable is really the evolutionary doctrine?

The knowledge of science changes over time based on new objective verifiable information, which makes it very reliable.

Ancient tribal texts without science that refuse to change for thousands of years ar emost definitely not reliable.

Your intentional ignorance of science will not change with new information.

 

[Eli G]

Of course, true knowledge increases with time. Even the Bible says it:

Dan. 12:4 “As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.”

Also the arrogance of some stupid people increases over time, as the Bible also says.

Dan. 12:10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand.

Studying the Bible has taught me to realize human reality and where I should place my hope.

 

[Pogo]

Of course, true knowledge increases with time. Even the Bible says it:

Dan. 12:4 “As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.”

Also the arrogance of some stupid people increases over time, as the Bible also says.

Dan. 12:10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand.

Studying the Bible has taught me to realize human reality and where I should place my hope.

On behalf of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy we welcome you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Evolutionists, for some reason, try to avoid the relationship between the supposed physical changes of apes and their intellectual development. Which of them occurred before and which after? For example: did apes lose their body hair when they were already humans who felt "moral" shame and began to weave clothes?

Intelligence seems to be related to the number of neurons in the brain. There are animals that have larger brains than us, such as the Sperm Whale. However, the organization and function of neurons in different species' brains can vary significantly, so direct comparisons are complex. Don't you just love it when the answer is, "It's complicated." LOL

Are you aware there have been entire human cultures that didn't wear a stitch of clothing? Modesty is culturally defined. There are cultures existing today, such as the Yanomami in South American who, although they sometimes wear minimal clothing, will go completely nude due the the heat of the rainforest.